The expansion of the fuel facility at Culver City’s Costco came under scrutiny at the Oct. 13, 2025 City Council meeting, and has been returned to city staff. Itemized as a public hearing, no vote was under consideration. The conclusion of the item was that it would return to the council after consideration of an Environmental Impact Report.
A very large crowd of neighbors came to speak against adding more gas pumps to the Costco property, located in a residential neighborhood that is also home to two preschools. The legal representative for Costco, Dale Goldsmith, argued that “the project’s impacts will be ‘less than significant’…according to the peer review study that was included in your packets [of information received by city council members.]”
The attorney representing the neighborhood, Frank Angel, offered that doubling the size of a gas station could not have a less than significant impact. Gas stations are a recognized health risk, and the state requres that every place that sells gasoline have a notice for the public that states there are cancer-causing chemicals being used. “There is not even any mention of the two preschools located less than 500 feet from the site.”
The project, which had previously been approved by the Planning Commission, was also highlighted as being inconsistent with the General Plan. The neighborhood -which is in both Culver City and Los Angeles – is already considered to be ‘burdened’ with pollution, and as such has a designation in the General Plan to be excused from further commercial and industrial development.
Angel stated “There are numerous inconsistencies with your updated General Plan.”
Assistant City Attorney Christina Burrows noted that staff could return “with a motion that would consider the [previous] environmental impact report exemption.”
The motion was to continue the item and ask city staff to review the objections raised by residents, and return with considerations in regard to CEQA.
Angel stated “They had years to do an EIR, but if they had done that, they would have been required to meet with the public.”
The request to have staff return with an appeal keeps the plan on the table. It will come back to the agenda at a future city council meeting.
Judith Martin-Straw
